Quick comment for now:
It has been written that, re: mathematics; when you stop asking (re: numbers) questions like "ten what?" or "173 what?", you begin to fly.
Um....fly? In abstract thinking? Or sink, in reality-thinking?
Specification is missing in math. Math is fuzzy; is generalisations.
Physics may well be that which is missing from mathematics! Physics: the laws that specify which generalisation you are talking about; from the perspective of a non-contradicting deal between other generalisations?
The bits they left out of mathematics: physics?
It appears that Dr. Dick has correctly described his equations 1.1 and 1.2 his way; specially in the last three paragraphs. I see 1.3 about to unravel itself. But my description of equations 1.1 and 1.2 still is accurately represented by these two equations.
On the face of it; he may seem to have used a radically different method to map those equations than I did.
Or was it so different? Hidden in Dr. Dick's method, is a subtle code. I suspect that code continues throughout his work. He seems possibly somewhat unaware of its presence.
This "code" is actually a little game, that I have described at length before.
I hope to be able to show how his system of reasoning has encoded in it the system I described.
The above is somewhat vague; subject to revision; but a hint at what discoveries may be round the corner.
Clue: adding "unknown data" to items is like "naming" the items. Adding it more than once; then removing a "name" without saying WHICH name (the first added name or the second added name) is playing musical chairs with the names. Anything described by such a process becomes a comparison of the names.
As "physics laws" are "laws of comparison"; building up a description of constraint from playing musical chairs with unknown data will give you "laws of comparison".
Note: Dr. Dick has given specific logical demonstration of Einstein's alleged mistake: theories derived from his geometry allegedly produce absurd (as in logically contradictory) result: time travel; and dubious results: tacheons.
(proper reply later)